Announcement

**Ex-soldier** · 1 March 2005, 18:54

The mere fact that you are considering what to do when your troops refuse to obey their orders shows that you and your troops are not properly motivated or trained to do the job. If your troops were properly trained, you would have full confidence in them and you would know for certain that your NCO's would ensure compliance with all orders handed down. If you have to look over your shoulders to see if your troops are still there, then it's time to get another job.

**Ex-soldier** · 1 March 2005, 18:57

But in answer to your question.....disarm the person involved, lock them up and continue with the mission.

**Bam Bam** · 1 March 2005, 18:58

ITS HYPOTHETICAL.

What if questions are a good way to see how various other people would react to a certain situation.

To see who's crazy and who's not crazy enough.

Also never read those DFR's so could you give me an abridged version of them?

**How Ya Doin?** · 1 March 2005, 19:06

I thought the RDF was a voluntary organisation? If they refuse to go good riddance. One less liability if they have an attitude like that anyway. Disarm them, tell them return their uniform n feck off home to their mammys.

**Docman** · 1 March 2005, 19:07

Originally posted by Bam Bam

ITS HYPOTHETICAL......
Also never read those DFR's so could you give me an abridged version of them?

Correct, It is hypothetical. I am just trying to think about the different situation one might find themselves in and possible solutions.

The act and constitution are on links at the bottom of the first post. But what the hell.

Article 28
3. 1° War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann
Article 29
1. Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.
2. Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.
3. Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States.

DA54
112.—(1) No duties or tolls, otherwise payable by law in respect of the use of any pier, wharf, quay, landing place, highway, road, right of way, bridge or canal, shall be paid by or demanded from any unit or other element of the Defence Forces or an officer or man when on duty or any person under escort or in respect of the movement of any matériel of the Defence Forces.

Originally posted by Ex-soldier

disarm the person involved, lock them up and continue with the mission.

But why??? They have sworn to obey all LAWFUL orders. Because of The above articles, can this be considered an Unlawful order. There is an answer, but I want to see peoples answers first.

Originally posted by How Ya Doin?

I thought the RDF was a voluntary organisation? If they refuse to go good riddance. One less liability if they have an attitude like that anyway. Disarm them, tell them return their uniform n feck off home to their mammys.

Yes it is voluntary, but refusing orders while in uniform is still a chargable offence and technically could merit a jail sentence depending on the severity. Rethinking your decision to join???

**How Ya Doin?** · 1 March 2005, 19:16

Can this hypothetical person give a reason why they are refusing to follow this order?

**Docman** · 1 March 2005, 19:18

I got this idea from Indymedia (yes, I sometime read it.... good comedy)

Irish troops out of Shannon!
by Appeal Thursday, Dec 16 2004, 11:16pm

An appeal to the Irish Defence Forces at Shannon Airport

Ever since the major disarmament actions in Jan/Feb 2002 there has been an Irish military presence at Shannon Airport. Their mission? To ensure the unfettered use of the airport by the US military.
Each day that Irish soldiers guard US military flights they are accessories to America's criminal wars.
The cops, airport police and other FBO folks who work alongside the Irish troops aren't exactly in the same situation. Whether the laws of war are upheld or not internationally doesn't concern their profession.
The Irish soldiers on the other hand rely on these international norms for their own safety. It's in their personal interests to stop the "disappearing" and torture of POWs, for example.
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php...ish%20soldiers

Some people went on to draw similiarities to the Nuremburg trials and stated that soldiers cannot hide behind the defence of "only following orders".

**JAG** · 1 March 2005, 19:18

Disarm them, remove them from the party, and charge them with disobeying a lawful order, in breach of the oath given freely on joining.

Now it's an SEP, and you've made clear your authority without purporting to determine the legality of your order, except insofar as carrying out the orders given to you are concerned.

But I think the lawful order stuff is more relevant to, say, being ordered to open fire indiscriminately on a protest of 100,000 civilians, or being ordered to carry out an extra-judicial killing. Someone claiming an unlawful order on the way to Shannon is pulling a stunt, and should be charged as an example to others. I would say this even if the order is unlawful: the courts decide on this one, not someone who's read too many stupid uninformed newspaper articles and thinks they can get an easy day in the warm.

If you feel the order is lawful, carry it out and ensure others do likewise. Bear in mind, however, that ignorance of the law is not an excuse in this or any other jurisdiction of which I am aware.

**Docman** · 1 March 2005, 19:19

Originally posted by How Ya Doin?

Can this hypothetical person give a reason why they are refusing to follow this order?

You are ic of a party sent to shannon and one man/woman refuses to go and states Articles 28-3-1 and 29-1/2/3 of the constitution as the reason and they consider themselves to be disobeying a unlawful order.

**jeebus** · 1 March 2005, 19:21

But why???

1)disarm the person involved
reason: They are no longer useful for you to the mission and their equipment could be.

lock them up
2) Do you want unarmed people wandering about a potentially dangerous situation. I would be safest to have to secured in a a well protected building

**Docman** · 1 March 2005, 19:29

Originally posted by jeebus

But why???

1)disarm the person involved
reason: They are no longer useful for you to the mission and their equipment could be.

lock them up
2) Do you want unarmed people wandering about a potentially dangerous situation. I would be safest to have to secured in a a well protected building

You're missing the point. You cannot arrest someone because they "no longer useful to you" or "wandering about a potentially dangerous situation". You are the one who would end up locked up for an illegal arrest. You have to state why your order is legal and why what they are doing is illegal.

They say your order contradicts the Irish Constitution. The Constitution is the ultimate law and therefore overrides your orders. They are therefore obeying the law (in their opinion) and you are the one committing an offence.

BTW, saying an order is an order is an order is not a legal defence. You are entitled to disobey unlawful orders (just make damn sure they are unlawful).

**Bam Bam** · 1 March 2005, 19:40

I think I see where docman is going.

Everything in this situation is a red herring, bar one.

The soldier in question believes they have recieved an UNLAWFUL order.

PLT Cmdr can't lock him up, cause this soldier is challenging the order.
COY Cmdr issued the order from BN.
BN Cmdr got it from Brigade
and so on and so on.

Short term, dismount the soldier, replace him with another and return him to unit HQ to await further orders
Long term begin an investgation

AND GOD KNOWS WHERE THAT WOULD GO...............

**jeebus** · 1 March 2005, 19:59

Originally posted by Docman

You're missing the point. You cannot arrest someone because they "no longer useful to you" or "wandering about a potentially dangerous situation". You are the one who would end up locked up for an illegal arrest. You have to state why your order is legal and why what they are doing is illegal.

I can disarm any one under my command perfectly legally.

I think your missing my point. I am not arresting anyone. I am just confining them to a safe area. That is I am ordering them to go to a safe area. I am sure you have done that to recruits. Or I can order them to do a duty of washing the inside of a cell in the guard house. No one is arresting or being arrested.

**DeV** · 1 March 2005, 21:43

Assuming we are talking about the RDF..

The oath taken by RDF officers:

I,.............., do solemnly swear (or declare) that I will be faithful to Ireland and loyal to the Constitution and that while I am an officer of the Permanent Defence Force I will obey all lawful orders issued to me by my superior officers and will not join or be a member of or subscribe to any political organisation or society or any secret society whatsoever.

The oath taken by RDF other ranks:

I, ............., do solemnly swear (or declare) that I will be faithful to Ireland and loyal to the Constitution and that while I am a man of the Reserve Defence Force I will obey all lawful orders issued to me by my superior officers and will not join or be a member of or subscribe to any secret society whatsoever.

Announcement

Legal problems.

Legal problems.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment